The USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency, a non-profit that acts
as the enforcing body for anti-doping rules and regulations in
professional sports) has levied official charges against Lance
Armstrong, seven time winner of the Tour de France (1999-2005), for
blood doping during several of his past competitions and races. If
Armstrong sufficiently loses the case, he could lose all of his titles.
If you want a recap on what's been happening, here is a link to
a New York Times article describing the issue. Responding to this,
Kiersten and Dani will take a look at whether the USADA should be
focusing on this past occurrence, or whether focus should be on the
present and future of cycling.
Please go here to read Kiersten's post first!
It should be noted, however, that this article does not argue the possibility of the allegations themselves. The point of this post is not to prove or disprove whether Lance Armstrong is guilty of blood doping, but instead discusses whether the repercussions of a guilty verdict (having titles revoked) are appropriate or not.
The argument for USADA litigation
Dani
Although I have been acquainted with many people who earnestly remember Lance Armstrong's victories, struggle with cancer, and charity work, I have never been deeply invested in or knowledgeable about Lance Armstrong or the sport of cycling itself. As such, I have no strong personal feelings towards or against Lance Armstrong, and could not speak to whether I believe he is guilty of using illegal drugs to secure victories. That being said, I am playing devil's advocate to Kiersten's argument, and am arguing in this article that, assuming Armstrong is (correctly and fairly) charged with blood doping, the post factum removal of his titles is the correct decision.
From a rhetorical standpoint (as I am want to take), I argue that the USADA is attempting to send a clear message to former dopers, current users, and individuals who may be tempted or looking to use dope to enhance their athletic ability in the future. By stripping Lance of his former titles, the USADA is taking a no-nonsense approach to a situation that cannot be handled any less seriously.
The first point I am going to address is the effect that the revocation will have on both fans and on professional cyclists (the peers and competition of Lance Armstrong). It seems clear that stripping Armstrong of his former titles would send a powerful message to cyclists: doping is illegal, and even users who "got away with it" in the past can get caught--and punished--in the future. Although it is too soon to tell, I can imagine that a revocation of Armstrong's titles will have a strong effect on whether cyclists (especially those tempted to or who are currently using blood doping techniques) decide to use performance enhancing drugs or not.
The effect that the revocation of Armstrong's titles will have on fans is also an important point to consider when deciding if this decision is appropriate or not. According to several polls [LA Times, Business Insider], a majority of those surveyed believe that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs, and according the the LA Times poll, nearly 75% of those who believed that he used blood doping techniques have altered their opinions about him. These statistics lead me to believe that fans are more concerned with solving the allegations of Armstrong's drug use (and sufficiently punishing dope users) than keeping the world of cycling static and constant.
This leads me into my second point, which is that it is important for the USADA to tackle allegations of performance enhancing drugs without discriminating against what point in time they occurred. In an allegation as serious as using illegal drugs to help win such an esteemed title as the Tour de France, it is crucial to condemn these acts, no matter when they occurred. In a case like this, the only way to properly denounce this act is to strip Armstrong of his titles. It would not be affective for the USADA to simply give a slap on the wrists--this would not send a serious enough message to cyclists who may be considering drugs, nor does it create an atmosphere of authority for the USADA. To put it in perspective: would you think it right of the court system to simply state that an embezzlement or theft commited five years ago is "unacceptable," instead of pressing charges against the offendor, even though the crime was committed in the past and evidence of the crime was found years later? Absolutely not. Drug use is illegal, and punishments should be the same whether the crime happened in the present or the past.
To conclude, I agree that the USADA should continue to focus on the prevention of drug usage in American athletes. It is of utmost importance that future incidents of doping are small in number (if not entirely absent), but the course of action that the USADA is pursuing is a step towards this goal. Institutions cannot hope to pursue a goal without addressing past issues or struggles with that goal. If the USADA allowed past incidents of doping to go unpunished, it would not send a strong of a message to both fans and athletes that doping is a serious crime. By threatening Armstrong with this punishment, they can confidently state "getting away with it" is no longer a possibility.
As usual, we always love to hear opinions on what the readers think! What are your thoughts on the allegations that Armstrong used blood doping techniques, and what do you think about the USADA's decision to revoke his titles if these allegations turn out to be true?
Please go here to read Kiersten's post first!
It should be noted, however, that this article does not argue the possibility of the allegations themselves. The point of this post is not to prove or disprove whether Lance Armstrong is guilty of blood doping, but instead discusses whether the repercussions of a guilty verdict (having titles revoked) are appropriate or not.
Dani
Although I have been acquainted with many people who earnestly remember Lance Armstrong's victories, struggle with cancer, and charity work, I have never been deeply invested in or knowledgeable about Lance Armstrong or the sport of cycling itself. As such, I have no strong personal feelings towards or against Lance Armstrong, and could not speak to whether I believe he is guilty of using illegal drugs to secure victories. That being said, I am playing devil's advocate to Kiersten's argument, and am arguing in this article that, assuming Armstrong is (correctly and fairly) charged with blood doping, the post factum removal of his titles is the correct decision.
From a rhetorical standpoint (as I am want to take), I argue that the USADA is attempting to send a clear message to former dopers, current users, and individuals who may be tempted or looking to use dope to enhance their athletic ability in the future. By stripping Lance of his former titles, the USADA is taking a no-nonsense approach to a situation that cannot be handled any less seriously.
The first point I am going to address is the effect that the revocation will have on both fans and on professional cyclists (the peers and competition of Lance Armstrong). It seems clear that stripping Armstrong of his former titles would send a powerful message to cyclists: doping is illegal, and even users who "got away with it" in the past can get caught--and punished--in the future. Although it is too soon to tell, I can imagine that a revocation of Armstrong's titles will have a strong effect on whether cyclists (especially those tempted to or who are currently using blood doping techniques) decide to use performance enhancing drugs or not.
The effect that the revocation of Armstrong's titles will have on fans is also an important point to consider when deciding if this decision is appropriate or not. According to several polls [LA Times, Business Insider], a majority of those surveyed believe that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs, and according the the LA Times poll, nearly 75% of those who believed that he used blood doping techniques have altered their opinions about him. These statistics lead me to believe that fans are more concerned with solving the allegations of Armstrong's drug use (and sufficiently punishing dope users) than keeping the world of cycling static and constant.
This leads me into my second point, which is that it is important for the USADA to tackle allegations of performance enhancing drugs without discriminating against what point in time they occurred. In an allegation as serious as using illegal drugs to help win such an esteemed title as the Tour de France, it is crucial to condemn these acts, no matter when they occurred. In a case like this, the only way to properly denounce this act is to strip Armstrong of his titles. It would not be affective for the USADA to simply give a slap on the wrists--this would not send a serious enough message to cyclists who may be considering drugs, nor does it create an atmosphere of authority for the USADA. To put it in perspective: would you think it right of the court system to simply state that an embezzlement or theft commited five years ago is "unacceptable," instead of pressing charges against the offendor, even though the crime was committed in the past and evidence of the crime was found years later? Absolutely not. Drug use is illegal, and punishments should be the same whether the crime happened in the present or the past.
To conclude, I agree that the USADA should continue to focus on the prevention of drug usage in American athletes. It is of utmost importance that future incidents of doping are small in number (if not entirely absent), but the course of action that the USADA is pursuing is a step towards this goal. Institutions cannot hope to pursue a goal without addressing past issues or struggles with that goal. If the USADA allowed past incidents of doping to go unpunished, it would not send a strong of a message to both fans and athletes that doping is a serious crime. By threatening Armstrong with this punishment, they can confidently state "getting away with it" is no longer a possibility.
As usual, we always love to hear opinions on what the readers think! What are your thoughts on the allegations that Armstrong used blood doping techniques, and what do you think about the USADA's decision to revoke his titles if these allegations turn out to be true?
No comments:
Post a Comment